Brand Protection campaigns are widely adopted by the hotel industry and are typically the first campaigns to be implemented.
I’m not a big fan of this type of campaign due to a significant problem – there’s no counterproof. It’s impossible to calculate what revenue might have been generated if a Brand Protection campaign wasn’t in place, as opposed to having one up and running.
Despite this issue, many hotels worldwide continue to use these campaigns, with the goal of course to protect potential direct traffic from being diverted to 3rd-party sites, especially the OTAs.
Although they can be boring and unattractive, but considering their broad usage among hotels all over the world, it’s worth investing some time to understand how to best utilize the budget allocated for Google Ads and optimize their performance.
As a matter of fact I often encounter several common mistakes in these campaigns, so today, I’d like to explore the main characteristics with you, pitfalls to avoid when setting up a hotel brand protection campaign and opportunities to explore in order to get the most out of the investment.
You’ll notice that these reasons are more logical than technical, so hopefully you might find something interesting and valuable in this discussion.
So without further ado, let’s dig in.
Go for “purchase” only.
Why do we launch brand protection campaigns for our hotels on Google Ads in the context of a strong brand protection strategy? Have we ever questioned the reasoning behind this? It may seem trivial, but the answer I’m about to provide reveals a common mistake often made. We create brand protection campaigns to safeguard the traffic that could potentially be “stolen” by third-party channels.
And who are these 3rd-party channels? Mainly the OTAs like Booking and Expedia. Sometimes other hotel competitors may try to get traffic who’s been looking for us and divert it to their site, but that’s going to be a tough job for them. We mainly protect our traffic from the OTAs.
And what can users do when they eventually land on sites like Booking or Expedia? They can only book through their sites. Can they submit a contact form to get in contact with you on Booking or Expedia? No.
Can they search for your phone number on these site so that they can call you? No.
If people want to contact you via form, or email, or call you.. They can only do that through your website or direct channel.
So, what’s the point of protecting traffic of people who may want to contact you via form, email, or phone? It makes no sense, because they only have your website or direct channel to do that. They can’t submit a form or call you from an OTAs’ site.
The only thing that OTAs can steal from us are online bookings that would have otherwise been made through your booking engine. That’s the only goal you should optimize your brand protection campaigns for: online bookings through your booking engine.
Optimizing a campaign towards other goals like Calls from Ads or Leads is useless, because you have no competitors to protect from when people want to either call you or get in contact with you in written form. It’s going to be a waste of budget and resources that you simply can’t afford to face.
It’s not the Brand Protection campaign that doesn’t work.
Unlike other industries, the hotel world has a unique aspect that significantly impacts marketing and advertising campaigns – revenue and distribution. It’s not always the case that an advertising or brand protection campaign fails because it’s poorly executed; it could simply be due to distribution or revenue issues making direct channels less appealing compared to other channels or hotels.
For instance, potential guests might visit our website after seeing us on an OTA but then realize that other hotels in the area offer better value propositions.
Alternatively, our direct channel may not necessarily be more advantageous in terms of room prices, cancellation policies, payment conditions, and so on.
Consequently, if there’s a distribution issue, we’re paying for traffic that won’t lead to direct bookings. Guests will likely still book through third-party channels, meaning we’re essentially paying for traffic we won’t be able to convert directly.
In conclusion, a brand protection campaign might not be failing due to poor configuration. First and foremost, it’s essential to have a robust and accurate online hotel distribution strategy, leaving no room for OTAs to gain bookings from their side.
At the same time, we must ensure we provide an enticing and appealing value proposition for potential guests. Otherwise, we risk losing them altogether.
Use only exact-match KWs.
When managing keywords for your Brand Protection campaign, ensure you use only exact match keywords, not broad match or phrase match.
The reason for this is that broad and phrase match types don’t provide the precision needed for a Brand Protection campaign. You may initially use phrase match to test potential search terms users might associate with your brand, but this testing phase should only last three to four weeks, depending on the generated volume.
Once the testing phase is over, focus exclusively on search terms closely related to your brand name without delving into long-tail keywords.
You’ll notice in fact that those terms that people enter on Google and that drive conversions are always the same and they typically are close variants of your hotel name, with no long-tails. So why spend money towards terms that simply don’t or barely convert?
So avoid using phrase match as it may attract irrelevant traffic, eroding the budget that could be allocated to more relevant search terms that lead to direct bookings.
In all cases, exclude broad match type keywords when discussing Brand Protection campaigns. Stay away from broad-match type keywords as if they were your worst enemy, resisting also the continuous alerts from Google itself trying to persuade you to use broad-match type keywords.
Broad match keywords attract unnecessary traffic and require daily clean-up of negative keywords to remove irrelevant search terms that waste campaign funds. Often, these irrelevant terms are competitor names, which is not the goal of a Brand Protection campaign.
If you want to create a campaign targeting competitors, allocate a separate budget for that purpose. In a Brand Protection campaign, focus solely on protecting your brand.
As I often say, in advertising there’s no such thing as “hitting two birds with one rock”. One campaign, one goal. Period. So for a brand protection campaign, disregard any search terms related to competitors and concentrate on your own hotel brand.
Negative out “phone” and “email”.
Remember our discussion about focusing on chasing “purchase” goals rather than lead generation or calls from ads? We concluded that the primary purpose of a brain protection campaign is to safeguard direct traffic from potential third parties, especially OTAs.
And we noted that users through OTA systems can only book online. If they want to call or email, they have no choice but to use our website or other direct channels, such as our Google Business Profile.
So, why should we pay for traffic from someone searching for our hotel’s name plus phone number (e.g., Hotel Palace Milano phone)?
A user searching for this simply wants the hotel’s phone number to contact them directly. And where can they find the hotel phone number?
Only on our site or direct channels like our Google Business Profile. Thus, it’s unnecessary to pay to acquire such traffic we’d likely obtain organically for free. Therefore, we should negate terms related to phone numbers and emails.
The same logic applies to email searches. If someone searches for “Hotel Palace Milano email” they’re clearly looking for the hotel’s email address, probably to send a written communication. Where else can they find your hotel’s email address?
Nowhere but your direct channels. Consequently, there’s no need to compete with ourselves by targeting these terms. Instead, we should focus on improving organic visibility and avoid wasting resources on unnecessary advertising efforts.
Don’t stress out too much about Bidding strategy.
Maximize Conversion, Maximize Conversion Value, Target Impression Share, and Maximize Clicks are just a few of the many bidding strategies available within Google Ads campaigns.
It’s easy to get confused with all these options. However, the bidding strategy isn’t the most critical aspect of a campaign, particularly for Brand Protection campaigns. The key is to follow logic.
What do we want from a Brand protection campaign? We want to obtain as many direct bookings as possible. Consequently, we could opt for Maximize Conversion or Maximize Conversion Value bidding strategies.
Since we’re discussing online reservations, a $1000 booking holds more value than a $100 booking. Therefore, it makes more sense to choose Maximize Conversion Value, where Google will optimize the conversion value.
This bidding strategy is particularly useful when budgets are relatively low and we don’t have enough funds to cover the entire impression share. In such cases, we aim to cover high-yield impression shares that Google can identify as highly convertible while disregarding those deemed less convertible.
However, there may be instances where we realize that cost-per-clicks are significantly higher with an automatic strategy like Maximize Conversion or Maximize Conversion Value.
In such cases, we could consider a more manual approach where we manage the maximum cost-per-click ourselves. If conversion performance remains satisfactory, we can reduce costs while maintaining high conversions.
Ultimately, it’s best not to spend too much time on this aspect and instead focus on monitoring results to make informed decisions.
Ad Copy: use different angles (USPs, Book direct) but always focus on value.
When crafting copy for your ads, especially the headlines on Google Ads for your hotel’s Brand Protection campaign, always aim to provide value and not just claim to get direct bookings simply because you make yourself visible.
Keep in mind that users have multiple options when searching for your hotel’s name and it’s not always the result in position #1 that gets the click; they can click on your result or perhaps another site trying to capture your direct traffic, such as booking.com, Expedia, or a metasearch engine.
So how do you compete with them? You compete through compelling copy and engaging words.
As you have the opportunity to showcase two or three headlines in front of potential customers, strive to deliver value by using different angles. Be creative and emphasize your hotel’s Unique Selling Propositions (USPs) or differentiating factors – these are crucial elements to incorporate into your ad copy.
Highlight reasons for booking directly with you, such as better rates or discounts. For instance, if you offer a 10% discount compared to rates found on booking.com or Expedia, clearly state “Book Direct and Save 10%” – this is an excellent headline that gets straight to the point.
However, don’t solely focus on the concept of direct booking; use other angles as well. Showcase any active promotions during specific periods or limited-time offers like a 20% discount available only until a certain date.
Include these deals in your ad copy because they’re more likely to be exclusive to direct bookings, which increases the chances of not only getting clicks but also actual reservations.
As said, the key takeaway is that you must provide value in your ad copy. Your ads aren’t just there for visibility and showcasing your hotel, but also for generating clicks and ultimately leading to bookings, so ensure that you deliver value right from the start with compelling ad copy.
It’s OK if the OTAs get their slice.
The budget required for your Hotel Brand Protection campaign on Google obviously depends on search volumes.
While this may seem trivial, some hotels generate a few hundred requests per day, while others may generate a few thousand. How many of these requests do we want to cover? That’s up to us and the strategy we have in mind. If we want to cover all of them, that’s fine; there’s nothing wrong with aiming to cover 100% of all brand-related searches.
However, it’s important to accept that some impressions will go to OTAs, especially when budgets are limited or when we want to allocate funds for other types of campaigns – which I always suggest doing.
In fact, it’s not wise to spend too much money on brand protection campaigns alone. It’s better to be clear about our goals and focus on higher-quality impressions by implementing a bidding strategy more focused on conversions rather than maximizing clicks. By doing so, we can achieve better results without covering every possible impression for our brand.
It’s okay if some impressions go to OTAs; there’s no need to worry as it’s part of the game. The key is to make the best use of the available budget.
Relying solely on brand protection campaigns isn’t the best approach; although there may be valid situations for this strategy, it’s generally better to allocate budget towards driving traffic from other sources, not just those searching for our brand.
We’ve just discussed how it’s acceptable for some impressions to go to the OTAs; we don’t always need to cover 100% of the impression share.
However, there is a crucial metric to monitor regardless within our Google Ads campaigns, which is the Search Impression Share. This metric essentially provides a ratio between demand and supply, or the number of times our chosen keywords generate user requests and how often we cover those requests.
If we have a 50% Search Impression Share, it means we cover about 50% of the potential market demand.
In my opinion, it’s not advisable to aim for covering 100% of the Search Impression Share in an attempt to outperform competitors in every situation, context, and regardless of lead quality. Some may adopt this strategy, but I would never suggest doing so.
Either way, it’s essential NOT to approach 100% too closely because when we do and continue to allocate budget, we’re effectively telling Google to use that budget even when it’s not needed. It’s like pouring water into a full bucket. Consequently, Google will likely increase costs since it will try to spend your budget even when unnecessary.
Even if your strategy aims to cover as much of the impression share as possible, I recommend keeping an eye on it and staying slightly below – let’s say around 80-90%. Avoid going beyond this threshold by lowering your budget when necessary, ultimately reducing your share closer to the ideal range.
Negative out “Tripadvisor”, “Trivago”, “Booking”, “Expedia”.
When users search for your hotel’s name along with a third-party channel, such as TripAdvisor or Trivago (e.g., Hotel Palace Milano TripAdvisor), what is the purpose of attempting to capture those clicks? Essentially, it makes little sense to steal or retain the traffic of people clearly intending to view your hotel on third-party platforms.
At this stage, these leads may not be qualified; they might become qualified later in the funnel, but now when searching “Hotel Palace Milano TripAdvisor”, user’s intention is clearly stated: he wants to see this hotel Palace Milano on Tripadvisor, maybe because he wants to read what other travelers have to say.
Think about it: what’s the best case scenario of you getting a click for “Hotel Palace Milano TripAdvisor”? User may click on your results, perhaps because it’s in first position, so the user lands on your site to immediately realize he’s not where he wanted to be. So, more likely, he will go back and click the TripAdvisor result. Basically you paid for a non-relevant click.
The alternative scenario is that users won’t click on your advert, resulting in your advert getting lower CTR, which in turn will negatively impact your Quality Score, which in turn will negatively impact your Ad Rank, which in turn will make your costs go higher.
Either way, you’re losing.
I suggest negative out third-party terms such as Tripadvisor, Trivago, Booking, Expedia, when associating to your brand terms. These terms will generate few clicks since they’re not relevant to the user’s search intent.
If someone searches “Hotel Palace Milano TripAdvisor” or “Hotel Palace Milano Booking.com,” let them go. These clicks aren’t of interest because you have little chance of converting them, and they don’t align with the user’s search intent. As said before, it’s okay to let certain impressions go. Instead, concentrate on high-intent searches that instead convert into bookings.
Make the most of sitelinks, callouts e image assets.
Many hotel brand protection ads may not be optimized simply because appropriate assets haven’t been created, especially site links or callouts, or perhaps they haven’t even applied an image – a key asset to associate with their headlines and descriptions.
These elements are crucial since users might click on our ad not only because they read and empathize with a headline or a description, but also due to certain site links or callouts that resonate with their search intent.
Site links, in particular, are additional links we can add to our ad block displayed on Google and serve as excellent tools for several reasons.
First and foremost, they occupy a significant amount of space within the user’s screen, effectively reducing the space available for other advertisers.
This becomes even more crucial on mobile devices where screen space is limited; the more space we utilize, the more relevant we become, and the less relevant our competitors appear.
For example, a user who is ready to book and is offered with a straight-to-the-point “Book Now” or “Check Availability” sitelink, might click on that sitelink as it better resonates with his intention of wanting to make the booking right away.
In summary, optimizing hotel ads involves creating proper assets such as site links, callouts, and images to enhance user engagement.
By doing so, we can improve our ad’s effectiveness and stand out from competitors – especially on mobile devices where screen space is even more limited, thus the more we occupy it, the more prominent our advert becomes.
Turn off display expansion.
A Hotel Brand Protection campaign is a “search” type campaign. Google has this powerful feature called Display Extension, which allows for the creation of a hybrid campaign that combines both search and display elements.
When setting up a search campaign, Google often suggests enabling this feature to activate your campaign within the display network as well.
It is though in my opinion advisable to disable this feature, for the very simple reason that a Brand Protection campaign is fundamentally a search campaign and should remain within the search network. And think about it, what’s the meaning of activating it in the display network?
Google always suggests to turn Display extension on, because Google doesn’t know that yours is a Brand Protection campaign: no matter your goal, Google will always suggest you turn display extension on. But since we use our brains before taking everything for granted, we understand that for a brand protection campaign the display network is the most useless think we could rely on.
As said before, in advertising, there isn’t a “two birds with one stone” approach; each campaign should have a clear objective. In this case, the goal is to protect our direct traffic when this traffic is actively searching for our brand terms.
Therefore, always disable the display extension and let your search campaign remain within its intended environment, optimizing budget usage and achieving desired results.
No competitors? Turn off the campaign.
It’s not necessary to run ad campaigns continuously, 365 days a year. There are periods when we don’t have OTAs trying to steal our market share, and consequently, it’s pointless to keep the campaigns active.
These periods vary from hotel to hotel, but at any time within Google Ads, we can see who our actual competitors are for the keywords we’re bidding on.
If we notice that there are no other competitors, perhaps that’s the moment when our campaigns should be paused. We can consider restarting them later and meanwhile allocating that budget to different types of campaigns.
The concept is quite simple: there’s no need to spend money where it isn’t required.
